Elizabeth Warren says she's been treated differently in the Senate but won't say how

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I think there are three possibilities here:
1) She is lying
2) She is just your typical hypersensitive liberal who thinks there is an 'ism' at fault every time she doesn't get her way
3) The one you mentioned--that those treating her badly are the male members of her own political party. But she would hardly be the first leftist to overlook bad behavior for the furtherance of her ideology.

I think she may be telling the truth in some ways. But the fact that she won't mention specifics leads me to believe it's her own party members.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

Hillary was in the Senate. Did she complain about it? But I see that your standard is that when a woman is the victim of a 'good old boys club' she is supposed to remain quiet and in her place, right? The truth is, making a broad claim as she did then refusing to name names is the height of cowardice pure and simple.

You're not even trying to have a rational discussion, so I won't bother trying. I'll just point out a couple of things.

1) My wife deals with this all the time, and it's a difficult tightrope to walk for women.

2) The institutional expectation is women keep their little mouths shut about it, and only get to complain if they're groped or raped or their jobs made contingent on those acts, and sometimes they're expected to remain quiet even in those cases, the sluts asked for it.... which is part of the problem women face in the real world.

3) She was posed a question and answered it. If she'd named names, you'd condemn her for that. She didn't name names, so she's condemned for that. Like I said in my first response, she's in a no-win situation here. She could have said it's all rosy and her old, white male colleagues were a bunch of enlightened gentlemen who welcome women into their club, but no one not ignorant or stupid should believe that.

I can't believe the question is very hard. She's put in a no-win situation. Nothing she can say would be anything more than 'she said/he said,' everyone who likes her believes her, everyone who doesn't calls her a whining b**ch, it's a tough place, get over it, etc., the media goes into a frenzy about the individual allegations, which in most cases is a sort of indirect 'bias' if it's like the places where my wife has worked for 25 years and doesn't lend itself to a concrete claim, and any concrete claims probably not provable in any real sense unless recorded on video.

And I don't know what it's like where you live, but in this part of the world, it's getting better but certainly common for people in position of power to continue to be male chauvinists, at least in the workplace. I've seen it in every larger office I've worked in. My wife's current ultimate boss has said in public that he doesn't believe women SHOULD work, presumably their place is at home, pregnant, barefoot, in the kitchen. And in a place like the Senate, with a bunch of older white men who've had their rear ends kissed for decades, on both sides of the aisle, it would be shocking and unbelievable if women weren't facing large professional obstacles. It's a good old boys club - look at the roster. We're breaking all time records in 2014, but there are still only 16 democratic women and 4 republican women. According to wiki there have only been 44 women senators in history.

When they discussed this on Morning Joe, they reminded everyone how Mika Brzezinski (spelling?) took everyone at MSNBC to task when she found out she wasn't being paid what her male counterparts were being paid. She named her boss, the President of the network, and others. That's what you need to do.

I live in NH. I have a staff of 12 direct reports - all but 1 of them male. I've been a manager in some capacity since I was 26. I've never had an issue with mistreatment by men. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

When they discussed this on Morning Joe, they reminded everyone how Mika Brzezinski (spelling?) took everyone at MSNBC to task when she found out she wasn't being paid what her male counterparts were being paid. She named her boss, the President of the network, and others. That's what you need to do.

If you read the "allegations" by Kirsten Gillebrand, they involved the good old boys behaving like typical, entitled male chauvinists which there isn't actually any law against. Gillibrand didn't allege anything that would be actionable against any employer - just that there's a club, women aren't really part of it, and that's a problem for women in a male dominated workplace.

I live in NH. I have a staff of 12 direct reports - all but 1 of them male. I've been a manager in some capacity since I was 26. I've never had an issue with mistreatment by men. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones.

Maybe not 'lucky' - that's how it should be. But certainly women having problems at work because they're women isn't exactly rare in this region. I've seen it in every office. If you worked where I have and didn't admit it's a problem, you were blind or a cause of the problem. It's not subtle. Women CAN succeed, but it's much harder.

If you read the "allegations" by Kirsten Gillebrand, they involved the good old boys behaving like typical, entitled male chauvinists which there isn't actually any law against. Gillibrand didn't allege actionable crimes - just that there's a club, women aren't really part of it, and that's a problem for women in a male dominated workplace.

Maybe not 'lucky' - that's how it should be. But certainly women having problems at work because they're women isn't exactly rare. I've seen it in every office. If you worked where I have and didn't admit it's a problem, you were blind or a cause of the problem. It's not subtle. Women CAN succeed, but it's much harder.

So in other words, they should complain about it, but not actually do anything about it. Got it.

I wasn't the cause of any woman not moving up the ladder. Everyplace I've ever worked had women in high level positions. Most of them were role models for me.

Women have always been welcome in the "clubs" in all the places I work. I much prefer the company of men to women myself.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she has been treated differently as a woman in Congress.

But unlike Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who opened up about her experience with sexism on Capitol Hill in a recent book, Warren — the first woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts — won't elaborate.

In an interview with CNN scheduled to air Wednesday, Warren was asked whether she had experienced treatment similar to what Gillibrand described.

"Yes," Warren said.

Would she care to elaborate?

"Nope," she said. "I've said all I'm going to say."

<snip>

First off, she looks nuts in that picture.

Second, she (and her Democratic counterparts in DC) push female citizens to fight against treatment like this, at the risk of alienating their bosses and co-workers, etc. But Senator Warren doesn't want to name names? Doesn't want to provide specifics? Doesn't want to fight it?

So in other words, they should complain about it, but not actually do anything about it. Got it.

She was asked a question. Is she expected to lie? And if not, burn her relationships with members of the Senate by naming names?

I don't think your expectations are reasonable. You're ignoring the consequences of making inflammatory, specific claims about some of the most powerful individuals in the country.

I wasn't the cause of any woman not moving up the ladder. Everyplace I've ever worked had women in high level positions. Most of them were role models for me.

Women have always been welcome in the "clubs" in all the places I work. I much prefer the company of men to women myself.

That's fantastic, but I'm telling you with 100% certainty that your experience is FAR from universal. You don't even disagree - you said there was probably "some truth" to her claims, but decided based on nothing that the offenders must all be democrats.

Look at the responses here. That almost all of them have dismissed the claims out of hand should clue you in on the problem she'd face by "naming names" with nothing but her word to back them up.

You're not even trying to have a rational discussion, so I won't bother trying. I'll just point out a couple of things.

1) My wife deals with this all the time, and it's a difficult tightrope to walk for women.

2) The institutional expectation is women keep their little mouths shut about it, and only get to complain if they're groped or raped or their jobs made contingent on those acts, and sometimes they're expected to remain quiet even in those cases, the sluts asked for it.... which is part of the problem women face in the real world.

3) She was posed a question and answered it. If she'd named names, you'd condemn her for that. She didn't name names, so she's condemned for that. Like I said in my first response, she's in a no-win situation here. She could have said it's all rosy and her old, white male colleagues were a bunch of enlightened gentlemen who welcome women into their club, but no one not ignorant or stupid should believe that.

I am being completely rational. It is you who are not thinking clearly and are responding emotionally based upon experiences of your wife. Now, get a hold of yourself and try to look at the issue objectively. Warren is not your wife, she is not some poor downtrodden soul buried in a corporate good old boy network. She is a US senator and a darling of the media. If she is being victimized by elected members of the US senate then she should expose them FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE LIKE YOUR WIFE WHO CANNOT DO IT. How do you not understand this?

She was asked a question. Is she expected to lie? And if not, burn her relationships with members of the Senate by naming names?

I don't think your expectations are reasonable. You're ignoring the consequences of making inflammatory, specific claims about some of the most powerful individuals in the country.

That's fantastic, but I'm telling you with 100% certainty that your experience is FAR from universal. You don't even disagree - you said there was probably "some truth" to her claims, but decided based on nothing that the offenders must all be democrats.

Look at the responses here. That almost all of them have dismissed the claims out of hand should clue you in on the problem she'd face by "naming names" with nothing but her word to back them up.

No, she shouldn't lie. I don't recall saying she should lie, did I?

She is making the claim, and she should either do something about it, or back off it. She can't have it both ways.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields